I was looking for a wider-angle lens for my 2 1/4 x 3/1/4 Graphics and I came upon this lens in a box of my own old camera stuff. It was apparently mostly sold on Ciroflex TLRs. I put it on a lensboard and checked it at infinity, and it covers the format and seems equally sharp to the edges on the ground glass. That, of course, is a far cry from using it, but it's worth a try. Has anybody used one of these?

It seems to have less-than-wonderful reviews online, or rather the Ciroflex has less-than-wonderful reviews, and some people say it was driven out of the marketplace by the much sharper lenses on Japanese TLRs. That suggests that a Japanese TLR lens like the one on the Mamiya TLR would be sharper and might also cover the format

Its likely a triplet and only covers 6 x 6 but might be a tessar if a 4 glass lens._________________The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU.

OP, not to discourage you from trying lenses out -- that's the best way to find out whether they'll do what you want -- but you're on a well-trodden path.

Person gets a 2x3 press camera, starts looking for inexpensive lenses, possibly "in the drawer," to extend what can be done with it. Been there, done that. I started when eBay was young, people and camera stores were emptying attics and few people knew much about relatively obscure lenses. I got some wonderful surprises for very little money.

It was like the early days of the California gold rush. Alluvial gold was in stream beds waiting to be picked up. These days most gold in California is well and truly buried and very hard to find.

Nearly all of the relatively inexpensive lenses that look like they just might cover 2x3, for example lenses for Mamiya TLRs, have been tried and found wanting. There aren't that many makes and models of lenses that will do, and they're mostly well-known.

Good luck with your searching and experimenting. Have fun. But keep your expectations low to avoid disappointment.

The f/3.5 are triplets. The f/3.2 (which is rare) was the Tessar. Years ago I mounted the f/3.5 version and took some shots on the RH8. There was some corner vignetting but surprisingly under a 10x magnifier there was detail there. And it was focused. But there was definate visible to the eye vignetting. I have the f/3.2 version also but the front element was scratchy so I never tried it. It would probably cover a little more. Maybe. I say go ahead and use yours and see for yourself. I was satisfied with my results.

The f/3.5 are triplets. The f/3.2 (which is rare) was the Tessar. Years ago I mounted the f/3.5 version and took some shots on the RH8. There was some corner vignetting but surprisingly under a 10x magnifier there was detail there. And it was focused. But there was definate visible to the eye vignetting. I have the f/3.2 version also but the front element was scratchy so I never tried it. It would probably cover a little more. Maybe. I say go ahead and use yours and see for yourself. I was satisfied with my results.

I've been so busy at work recently I haven't tried much of anything. But in addition to sheet film holders, I finally bought a roll film holder on eBay, for 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 "ideal format" rather than full-size. I bought one that size because it was cheaper, but that should also help a lot with vignetting.

Also, I tried something completely daft and that may also work. I have 50 mm f.4 Carl Zeiss Flektogon for a Pentagon Six that, because it's retrofocus, will focus to infinity on a 2 x 3 Speed Graphic and does seem to cover at least the smaller format. This is much wider than the 85, but it's also nearly as large as a can of soup.